The Resistance: A Preliminary Proposal

In Number 110 of this newsletter, it was proposed that the Tea Party participants establish an informal network to see to effective voter opposition to the leadership of Congress and the overall thrust of the Obama administration’s policies. This general concept deserves to be debated and developed.

The name of the spontaneous Tea Party movement is ideal. While it should be used by those working to redirect Congress and force Team Obama to moderate its extremism, it might be a good idea to give the emerging resistance its own name. Perhaps “progressive” scorn of the Tea Parties and the contempt of the bicoastal elite for much of the nation can suggest a term. This newsletter believes that the pejorative “flyover country” is particularly suitable. Begin, therefore, with “Flyover Country Volunteers,” and go from there to come up with a better name.

At this stage, political specifics should be minimal. Opposition to deep indebtedness, Obamacare, an apologetic foreign policy and the lap dog press might be on the list. But the goal of the network should be simply to reform what is almost certainly the worst Congress in US history. If that can be accomplished, the leader will get the message.

This newsletter therefore proposes that various weblogs and Tea Party groups establish communications and begin planning a nationwide effort to impose reform.

First, communicate with each other, and spread the idea of a loosely-knit effort to coordinate the resistance.

Second, plan events such as Tea Parties to bring like-minded people together. Never mind the news media; use existing lines of communication to publicize the next round of Tea Parties.

Third, keep in mind the historical example of the Committees of Correspondence. They can serve as a model.

Fourth, refuse all attempts of the Republican party and other organizations to co-opt or exploit the new network. Avoid characterizing the resistance as conservative, libertarian, centrist, or allied in any way to any existing ideology or organizations. This is to be a voluntary association of voters who seek to weaken the grip of the extremists who currently set the agenda for Washington.

Fifth, improve on the above four points.

Flyover Country is not a geographic region. It is a state of mind, a value system, that has been set aside by the political elite. Mocked and ridiculed for its accents, tastes, recreational preferences and religious beliefs, Flyover Country is considered a community of ignoramuses and throwbacks that should be organized — meaning that it is to be controlled. In that effort, “progressive” zealots have even attempted the creation of a personality cult; the media, for the most part, have joined in this disturbingly anti-democratic exaltation of the leader. To oppose his policies is to be damned as racist.

The founding values of our country are mocked, and our grandchildren will never even know what they were if we do not form an effective resistance.

Flyover Country can assert itself, restore sanity to the political process, and secure Liberty against the depredations of authoritarian dreamers. Let there be a network of resistance!


An essay in the July 27, 2009 New Yorker by one James Surowiecki concludes with the sentences, “It’s a global economy. It would be helpful to have a genuinely national government.” That sentiment sums up Surowiecki’s contention that federalism is a hindrance to prosperity. It’s a superficially rational position, and just the sort of raw material out of which political ideologies can be constructed.

It’s also patent nonsense. Because it is rooted in fantasy, it is inimical to Liberty and prosperity.

Surowiecki’s case is based on Keynesian economics and the need for an efficient grid to distribute electricity.

Keynes died sixty-three years ago. The nation has had more than enough time to test his theories, which center on his insistence that when the economy falters, the government should prime the pump with cash, creating national leaf-raking programs if necessary. Surowiecki points out that under federalism, the fifty states of the USA cannot participate in a unified effort to employ millions to do essentially nothing, for states are required to live within balanced budgets. This, he notes, forces them to cut spending and increase taxes in tough times, thereby making times tougher. He tells us that “Even as the federal government is pouring money into the economy, state governments are effectively taking it out.”

That seemingly accurate observation may slip by many readers. Few might ask: if the states are taking money out of the economy, where, exactly, are they putting it?

Not a penny the states collect in taxes disappears from the economy, and Surowiecki must know that. His use of the metaphor “taking it out” is dishonest.

The mechanics of Keynesian policies are easy to understand in principle, but no one has ever been able to make them work to abort recessions or create prosperity on demand. That’s because the economy is a huge system whose interrelationships cannot be modeled so as to permit prediction. Tinkering always produces cascades of unexpected causes and effects. The result: no president or chairman of the federal reserve has two buttons on his desk, one marked “Poverty” and the other marked “Prosperity.”

Does anyone really think Slick Willy was smart enough to engineer a huge budget surplus and widespread prosperity? If things were as simple as Keynes implied, would there be any debate at all over economic policy?

Surowiecki’s core contention is that “In the midst of this downturn…state and local governments…will be doing precisely the wrong thing.” Which is what? Why, balancing their budgets. Because the states can’t create money, they have to live on their tax revenues. As people are thrown out of work and those revenues decline, the obvious answer — if Keynesian economics worked as advertised — would be for Washington to inflate the money supply even more. That would hire the unemployed and get them to paying state taxes again.

Indeed, Surowiecki agrees. The problem, he claims, is that the federal government is not doing enough. So the solution is obvious, and one would expect him to focus on it: Keynes told us what to do, and if we believe he is right, we should follow through. Yet Surowiecki is distracted from that simple truth, and accuses the states of sabotaging prosperity. He believes they are destroying rather than circulating money, and suggests that they be abolished as political entities.

How did he go off the rails?

The answer is that he views prosperity, poverty and economics as control issues. People have too much freedom; they just won’t obey the mandates of a wise central power, and that fact irritates authoritarians of all political stripes.

Surowiecki points out that when Washington gives away money for highway and railroad construction, the states spend it as they see fit, shortchanging cities. That’s due to the “rotten borough” nature of apportionment that determines the membership of state legislatures.

The obvious solution would be to provide even more money to the states, flooding them with funds until every hamlet has a highway and a train station. Think of all the jobs that would create! No, one does not have to erase the state lines on the map to do that.

Then, before the hapless reader can put Surowiecki’s authoritarian presumptions into perspective, the subject turns to those huge overhead cables that transmit electricity around the nation. Nobody wants to live near them, so if we are ever going to distribute watts properly, we have to have national rules and enforce them. People have to be directly controlled by Washington, in other words.

That will, of course, lower some property values and anger some folks, but the central planning behind the new national grid will create a much better result than if we leave it to the troublesome locals.

How much better is “much better”? One wonders, for Surowiecki notes that “Wind power could eventually produce as much as twenty percent of the energy that America consumes.” Wind power? Twenty percent? This newsletter considers that an absurd claim, even as it admits it has no data to refute it.

Well. In the final analysis, if Keynesian economics works, the states cannot forever stand in its way. So let Washington guarantee national prosperity by driving the debt up to literal millions of trillions of dollars. And if the power grid must be designed for maximum efficiency, it can be done, because the interstate commerce clause of the federal constitution has already been broadly applied, and can be in this case.

The solutions exist. Washington can attempt to dictate economic prosperity by rigorously applying Keynes’s concepts, and the states can be brushed aside when they try to spend federal money as they see fit.

One should wonder again why Surowiecki damns the states, when the real problem is clearly federal timidity.

It is clear to this newsletter that Surowiecki’s real goal is not prosperity, but national solidarity through greater control of the individual. That control should be placed in the hands of the national government, he is saying, and if we allow the states to modulate the direct exercise of central authority, we shall all be poorer.

Economic distress is, in other words, a consequence of the willfulness of ignorant individuals. They have to be compelled to obey. Yes, this is not just elitism, but authoritarianism that borders on totalitarianism.

In fact it is essentially a restatement of the Fuehrerprinzip (Nazi concept: “leader principle,” shared by Mao, Stalin, Franco, Stroessner, Pol Pot, the alien life-form running North Korea, and all tyrants). The all-wise unique authority must be obeyed, or the welfare of the people will suffer.

The hyper-authoritarian solution might have some merit if it actually benefitted humanity. It is more than likely that the rigorous application of Keynesian economics will impoverish the nation rather than enrich it, however. After all, if increasing one’s debt could create wealth, there would be no lenders.

The implications of that insight plunge the inquirer into a maelstrom of dystopian nightmares: a world without banks, using money handed out in any desired quantity. At a stroke, all we know about the production and distribution of goods and services is swept away. Follow the logic, and you will see that Keynes’s panacea cannot be adopted without becoming its own reductio ad absurdum.

Moreover, the benefit of a perfectly designed power grid would never negate the harm done by the loss of local control of local projects. If the people wish to remain free, they will cherish their inefficiencies as symbols of their Liberty; this is Earth, not Heaven.

Ultimately, control freaks like Surowiecki are not terribly interested in prosperity, poverty, or efficiency. Their real goal is the solidarity of the masses, which they see as threatened by local governments. They consider all the checks and balances and restrictions on political authority to be hindrances rather than protections. Such people are very dangerous.

That reminds the thoughtful that the strongest evidence against the proposal to transfer power from the states to the central government is Congress itself.

If any segment of US society has ever demonstrated its incompetence to conduct the affairs of the nation, it must be the current members of the ruling elite who work in the District of Columbia. It can be debated, but the USA currently has the worst Congress in history.

All evidence shows that the federal government is unqualified to exercise the power Surowiecki wants it to have. Those who believe otherwise indulge themselves in leaps of preposterous faith.

The Anthropogenic Global Warming Hoax As Of October 2009

For the best brief statement that clarifies the issue, the reader is advised to read these remarks by Professor Lindzen. This newsletter linked to them in early August of this year, but the information richly deserves a second link.

Perhaps the biggest news of all continues to be the infamous Hockey Stick Graph. Exposed in this internet post (originally linked to in Nr. 24 of the PenPo, 18 August, 2008), the graphic was used by Al Gore in his film; it was the single most effective weapon in the arsenal of the AGW believers. Then it was destroyed by its critics.

This newsletter believed the exposure of chicanery and lies so discredited the graph (which shows a steep increase in global temperatures after the beginning of the Industrial Revolution, and predicts catastrophe unless the trend is reversed) that the Hockey Stick was forever broken. Not so. The people behind the concept have rallied, and are now trying to promote evidence that produces a virtually identical graph. They claim that good data have been assembled (from studies of tree rings, which reflect climate) and this time the proof is solid.

For some years now, scientists who want to make sure that another hoax is not being attempted have been asking for information on how the New Hockey Stick Graph (NHSG) was created. Exactly which sequences of tree-rings were used? A number of sequences are known to the scientific community, but the creator of the NHSG did not specify which ones he used. More to the point, he remained unresponsive to requests for full disclosure. As of this writing, he has informed the scientific community that he is ill and will not respond to inquiries unless he recovers.

The full story is spelled out in detail by the same author who investigated and reported on the original Hockey Stick hoax; his new post is based on information found here. For the second chapter in a very depressing account of the prostitution of science by fanatics, click on this link.

Once you are on the Bishop Hill website, you can explore some of the related material and read the comments of scientists and lay observers; if you do, you will see that the British newspaper The Guardian has censored all mention of the facts surrounding the NHSG. Commenters on a Guardian website who so much as include the relevant URL in their remarks find that their messages are deleted at once. The Guardian is adamant: the NHSG shall not be questioned. In fact the news media in general are refusing to carry the story, though it is seismic for science and for the scientific journals that have published the NHSG.

Here are some additional links to information on AGW. You are welcome.

How the new data on the NHSG relate to the IPCC’s claims.

The PenPo has linked to this useful file before. It shows what carbon dioxide cannot do. Additional related data here and in this graphic; more graphics here and on this web page, and finally here. All of this information is valuable and easily grasped because of its format, which makes passing the URLs along an easy way of communicating with AGW believers who simply don’t have the facts.

A petition that the news media never heard of.

The Maldives. About to drown? Click on the link.

It’s no wonder Al Gore almost never takes questions.

You have seen this graphic before. It shows amazingly high levels of atmospheric CO2 during some pretty cold times. According to the Revealed Truth as handed down by The Goracle, that cannot happen. Ever.

How not to drive temperatures up: add CO2.

Professor Lindzen tells us there has been no global warming for over a decade, but if there had been, this thing would be the responsible party.

This web page is a bit technical, but it demonstrates — at the very least — that the folks debunking AGW nonsense are not all from the lay community. The NHSG is under attack by real experts. Click here.

A lot of atmospheric physics involves establishing correlations. This brief paper deals with sunspots and global climate.

Here are some suggestions posted by a commenter; they deserve your time.

It is the Sun’s variable output and Earth’s Orbit and Tilt dynamics that drive climate change. We detect planets around distant stars by the wobble imparted upon them by their gas giant planets.

The Earth goes into Ice Ages every 100,000 years or so do to its orbital and tilt variances.

The Sun goes through regular solar cycles that have true impact on climate.

With Solar Sun Spots at a near 100 year minimum, it is predicted that a major cooling trend is coming for the next 30 to 170 years. CO2 trails global warming trends by 600 to 800 years. The world has been cooling for the past ten years.

AGW believers put a lot of faith in “consensus.” Whatconsensus“?

A handbook for the rational.

Science, journalism, and politics: two useful commentaries — One and then its companion.

Here’s a collection of data that throws light on the evolution of AGW propaganda and on the responses thereto.

For the global warming issue, here are quotes from scientists and prominent personages that have helped lead this trend. Just scroll through the quotes and it’s easy to see how this happened.

If you have time, scroll through the quotes of scientists and prominent people who are deemed to be global warming skeptics. The difference in tone, attitude, and objectives is striking.

Then there’s this to wrap up the case:

The “AGW-CO2-climate catastrophe” hypothesis postulates that an increase in atmospheric carbon dioxide will cause runaway global warming. This has repeatedly been shown to be false; as beneficial CO2 steadily rises, global temperatures have steadily fallen.

And the harm done? Plenty. Higher taxes that accomplish nothing except lowering living standards; increases in governmennt power; the dumbing down of the populace; the scandalous misbehavior of some scientists and many politicians that erodes the public’s confidence in leadership in general; and the corruption of the media. Regarding that last effect, consider this:

When the BBC finally ‘fessed up last week to the Global Warming Fraud — without admitting how much they aided and abetted the scam over ten years or more — a liberal gent I know was shocked. He had sort of gritted his teeth and tolerated my skepticism over the years, but he never wanted to judge the whole fraudulent business for himself, although he had plenty of qualifications to do so. But this fraud was obvious. You had to want to close your eyes not to see it. I say that with all appreciation to the scientists and bloggers like Anthony Watt, who doggedly did the hard work of double-checking the fraud.

You can read it all here. Meanwhile — how to square this BBC report with the truth? It’s impossible. Brown is a moron, a hopeless, babbling fool.


The local cops have never gotten over this sting set up by a group of angry citizens. The police were suckered into making an illegal raid on a house, and the dust has not settled yet. The nation needs more groups doing things like this — because somebody has to keep the cops honest, and only outside agencies can do it effectively. Quote from the post: “Polls, platforms, facts and figures don’t work nearly as well as seeing a video showing people something that could actually happen to them.”

Maybe there’s hope after all: a US college, William & Mary, earns a “Green Light” rating from FIRE. If you don’t know what this means — and it means a very great deal — click.

The promise of universal government-provided health care is a Utopian opium dream. “A careful reading of the evidence suggests that the Baucus bill will add as much as $376 billion to the federal deficit through 2019. And that figure understates the full impact of the bill on the budget.” More data here; the upshot is that the president is lying to the nation.

Save US journalism from the consequences of its actions? Why?

The real news regarding Islamist movements seldom makes the papers or the TV. Here’s a good source.

Learning by watching the folks walking ahead of you on the path you have chosen, or…what the hell…not.

Trying to understand evolution by watching it proceed.

You know it’s going to get nasty when the folks out of power reach for their copy of Alinsky. That’s thinking like a dipsy-doodle Swarthmore senior.

Obama sets the standard for the health care debate, and then complains when others honor it.

A big government agency is still helping people buy homes they will be unable to keep. The madness has nothing to do with capitalism — it’s a bureaucratic mindset that manifests the values of leftist social engineering.

The Wall Street Journal has an interesting article on Iran, Lebanon and Israel on its website. Recommended.

Related item — WSJ now Number One, beating USA Today. All PenPo readers know why that happened.

Leave the Taliban alone, because they are not Al Qaeda? No, and this is why.

So Congress is not “the worst ever,” as the item on federalism in this issue claims? Hah! Competent legislators don’t play shell games.

Poor ol’ Joe. His idea of policy is goofy, and his prospects are not good. One for the road, and then…will somebody help him into a taxi?

Which reminds the sober reader of this boyo. Teddy the failed crown prince will be studied and reappraised for years, but enough is known now to hope that the nation never sees his like again — and that from now on, the jurisprudential system in Massachusetts will be ashamed to function as if it were a family-owned business.

Consider the dangers of letting amateurs and ideologues write legislation regulating the financial industry. To “Too big to fail” we need to add, “Too stupid to make it fair.”

This newsletter’s lead items in numbers 108 and 109 dealt with how Iran knew the USA would reveal the Qom processing plant to the world. From this article comes an interesting quote: “Is there a mole working for Iran inside some Western intelligence agency? Well, probably, but that’s not necessarily the only possible explanation for Iran’s pre-emption.” Read it all.

The Obama administration’s plan to impose solidarity on the electorate is not a paranoid’s fantasy. It’s a reality, and the proof is availablein the form of a leaked memo. The scheme amounts to a cynical exploitation of the current economic crisis.

There’s an assault on free speech and press from the “progressive” end of the political spectrum. “Wingnut” showman Rush Limbaugh is one of the targets — as Obama says, stop listening to him — and fake quotes have been used to discredit him. This is a reminder that fascism is not the unique property of the right.

This video and the group that made it will be viciously condemned. When truth must not be uttered, the censors must be overthrown. More power to the EDL!

The Republicans represent the rich, the Democrats represent the working class. It used to be that way. Who really, really represents you?

A plunge into hell: lawyers, insurers, politicians and other scoundrels, all in a huddle. And the public is the target. It’s a genuine, certified horror, because those “death panels” the “whore/bitch” from Alaska who “popped out a retard” talked about actually are part and parcel of the plan. Don’t believe it? Click on the video, Pilgrim, and pay particular attention to the audience reaction to the Kafkaesque words of the “progressive” bureaucrat. Then explain to this newsletter exactly how The One is going to render those words untrue.

The major media have been ignoring ACORN lately. The last thing the nation needs is the fake rehabilitation of this outfit, a process that would probably begin with a lack of media interest in the scoundrels. Big journalism may hope you forget, but this newsletter has an item from April of this year to remind you of the full story.

From the PenPo’s Yes, But What’s New? file: an insider explains how Team Obama played and plays the press. Might this admission not irritate or even alienate some journalists? Very unlikely — the vast majority remain profoundly ensorceled. Their professional ethics are so degraded that they won’t even be embarrassed. That’s the real scandal here. Obama’s True Believers are just doing their jobs, but the press…well, it’s not doing its proper job.